Does it require much intelligence to perform? No, not really. But it is the smart move, since 'dumb people' can be used to describe a vast majority of the voting block. I'd argue that the more informed and involved you are in politics, the more effort it would take for a politician (or anyone, for that matter) to shape your opinion. It is easier and more efficient to talk in such a way that anyone can understand you, assuming you believe the content of your message is strong enough on its own that you don't need to disguise it.

Let's be honest: Americans in general do not have a strong education or reading level, which probably goes hand in hand. If Trump is speaking on a low level, doesn't that mean he's not excluding people from his audience by disguising his message from them? Ordinarily, politicians use carefully crafted phrases to include disclaimers that let them fall back later if they're proven wrong, or to use doublespeak and hide the true purpose of their words. Higher level speech is often both a shield and a distraction which clouds the reality from voters. If Trump is speaking simply, that also means he's speaking relatively plainly, or honestly. The very reason voters trust Trump is because they can understand him; because someone who makes so many definitive statements is seen as more relatable and reliable than the doublespeak standard we're used to seeing in politics. In short, he's speaking their language and no one else is.

I also wonder what sources were used to compile this comparison of reading levels. Did it use only interviews, or pre-written speeches, rallies and other public appearances as well? While bearing in mind that most interview answers are still pre-practiced responses, I have to imagine that the grade levels would be far closer if it used only interviews, as Trump's public speaking opportunities are usually far more candid and informal than those of the other candidates.

In my experience, you know, living here, people generally have zero interest in politics unless it directly affects them, i.e. costs them money. Even during Obama's elections and presidency, the only time I ever heard anyone else begin a conversation on politics has been economy-based. Nothing about war, or race, or same sex marriage, or gun control, anything of that sort. Just Obamacare and how much it costs.

This time around is different. Every so often I hear mention of Bernie, always relating to free education. The rest of the time it's all about the last (probably) regrettable soundbyte that came out of Trump's mouth. Trump is a conversation starter in a way that no other candidate's been for eight years (looking at you, Dubyah), and he does so with such consistency and lack of apology that he gets people talking about and interested in politics even if they never have before. Whether you support him or not, you can't deny his ability to sell tickets and fill seats. I strongly believe that if he wasn't so blunt and plainspoken, this election would be much the same as any other in the modern era. trump is getting the 'average American' to care in a way that most candidates never could, and I'm pretty sure the reason is not what he says, but how he says it. McCain had a lot of similar racially fueled platforms when he ran against Obama, but he couldn't fill seats like Trump could, so we know that's not what's getting people's attention.

All of this noise before we even get a name for Obama's choice, before Scalia has had a funeral, is very disappointing. But I think we would be seeing a similar situation if the roles were reversed.

And dnd, I think you've mixed up speaking plainly in order to reach a larger audience and speaking down to people because you've figured out how to sell yourself to a particular demographic after being on reality tv for so long.

And dnd, I think you've mixed up speaking plainly in order to reach a larger audience and speaking down to people because you've figured out how to sell yourself to a particular demographic after being on reality tv for so long.

Is there that much of a difference? 'Speaking plainly' so the recipient can understand and 'dumbing down' so the recipient understands you has the same effect. The difference is based not on the speaker but the listener, who will call it 'dumbing down' if it's not necessary. The target audience for simplistic grammar would avoid calling it 'dumbing down', because that would be an insult to themselves.

Essentially, potentially demeaning language is determined by the audience, not the speaker. For example, if Dora The Explorer was marketed to people in their mid-40's instead of 40 months, that would clearly be talking down. Hell, it's talking down for most seven year old kids. But it's not talking down for the four year old, because that's the level the show needs to stoop to to ensure that the target audience fully grasps what's happening. If a 40 year old happens to watch Dora, for whatever reason, does that mean the show's writers have now been 'talking down' to their audience? If parents watch a show with their children, does that mean the show is insulting the parents if it doesn't include bits the kids have a hard time following?

If Trump needs to speak in simple terms and use strong hawker's rhetoric with punchy sentence endings in order to find and inform his audience, let him. The numbers indicate it's working in his favor, which means it's not talking down in the same way that Blue's Clues wasn't talking down when they asked toddlers where the giant paw print was on the screen and then stared into your soul for a full ten seconds before moving on as if nothing happened. IT'S ON THE F***ING CHAIR, STEVE!

Was the guy's name Steve? I feel like it was Steve.

Anyways, what matters is that there's a balance that has to be struck. The lower you go to be inclusive, the more you offend the outliers at the high end of the curve. Based on the evidence I'm seeing in those around me, where people who formerly avoided politics like a plague are following the trump trail wholeheartedly and people who would never talk politics before are now actively researching and engaging, The level Trump's picked seems to be effective.

could you repeat that using small words in simple sentences that end in a buzzword?

Ok first of all the thing is, this forum has a problem. People are on here who support Trump and they're going to see this country in ruins. I've had people telling me on steam all day "I'm worried about this forum". I tell them I've got it under control. People who used to hate me are saying "good job". If you can't see that then I guess you're just not a patriot. But if you've maybe changed your mind about the way I do things then that's terrific.